Is Britannica considered a reliable source?
Britannica has in the past been a reliable source. Check the list of contributors to the series. Have you been using a disc version or a print version. It also depends on what level of education you are at. As you move up through the grades of school, teachers prefer you turn to source materials closer to those who did the actual studies of events etc., or performed the original science experiments, or suggested hypotheses or developed the hypotheses into theses. You may need to check out the rules of writing an essay for your particular place and level of learning. There is often a booklet and it may even be online.
What are the most reliable and unbiased online sources of news?
To pick the most unbiased, neutral or truthful news source online, the person who attempts to answer will almost certainly be biased (The person has weighed options and comes up with a judgement what on he or she believes is most unbiased, based on personal biases), hardly neutral (or else the person wouldn’t pick just one site), and a liar, for selecting and embracing one site only gets a selection of what one site’s editors believe is closest to factual reporting. (separate from opinion pages).By selecting one site, you choose to put on blinders and deny the points of view published by other sites. And if you were to find such an unbiased and neutral site, it would excel mostly in creating boredom.Reporters and editors strive for objectivity, but objectivity does not mean giving equal space and weight to both sides of a story, as if a story only has two sides. Usually it has more. Objective means to quote sources accurately, and when someone says, and if someone cites a “fact” that can be objectively proven wrong, point it out. Often times, however, different sides will cite facts that are in fact accurate, but in opposition. Then it becomes a more interesting debate.A neutral news site suggests a site whose editors and reporter don’t care about the people and places that are their responsibility to cover. Solid news sites are passionate about fulfilling their responsibility, and are quick to report a story that threatens to undermine the places and people for whom they report.Truth is what they strive for, but reporters and editors know that truth is not always easy to find. So they work harder to find it, and point out what statements given by officials fall short of the truth, or may be true but is told without evidence.Finally, THERE IS NO ONE SOURCE to depend on for news. Some days, The New York Times comes closest to the mark of accurate, objective reporting. Sometimes it’s The Washington Post. Surprisingly often, it’s a small-town newspaper or radio station that rises closest to that mark by covering a story that major news sources have missed. And that is the key. Don’t depend on one source. News is complicated and it keeps changing. You have to use different sources to keep up.
How reliable is The Encyclopædia Britannica as a source of information?
It is very reliable. It’s reputation has long been that it is probably the “most respected” of all of the general encyclopedias. (Now, that may not mean it is as up to date as the latest professional journals published in a field, of course.)The Britannica was often known for contacting those who were considered some of the “leading scholars” in any field, and asking them to write the entries in a particular area of expertise. Rather than simply hire their own writers, they tended to hire the acknowledged experts, or the acknowledged experts. So, the author of the entry on Shakespeare was one of the five best regarded experts on William Shakespeare in the world. (Of course, that expert would then often work with others in the field, and finally “edit” and fact-check the work.)Caveat — I do not know if that has changed much, since they ceased the print edition. I do not know if they are still able to fund the same sort of experts today. I am basing this on many decades, especially from the 1950s through the early 2000s. So, if you are researching a topic such as “homosexuality” — I am not certain if they are able to update as they used to. And, we have learned a great deal about that topic in the last 25 years. If you are researching a topic such as “computers” you might find that entry dated… if they are no longer updating each and every year. I do know they were in financial trouble, at the time they ceased the annual print edition. That was in 2012. So, if you need an entry on the latest developments in artificial intelligence, it may now be a bit lacking… not certain.
Is The Washington Post a reliable news source?
Um 2019 called this is the era of political partnership that claims to be bipartisan but is really not at all.They have not endorsed a republican for president since before the year 2000 more than 95% of there endorsements are democrats. Out of the slim margin they do endorse they are hyper liberal almost democrats.Thier editors often work for multiple news sources including the huffington post and sometimes buzzfeed liberal tabloids to be exact.Viewership is over 70% democrat. Also considered democrats most trusted newsource.If thats not enough look at thier opinion pieces today that concludes it for anyone that doesn't agree with this opinion I challenge you to click on thier opinion pieces just post all the links you'll see 2 republican ones at tops on very very good day and 20 democrat ones using all kinds of buzzwords. They have been pushing conspiracy theories and they glorify any republican that bashes the president as a martyr. The only republicans they like are dead ones or really apologetic liberal never Trumpers. In conclusion anyone that tells you otherwise is a moron,a complete and total village idiot. The washington post of the past 3 decades as far as any reasonable person can tell has become a democratic mouth piece.
Is Business Insider a legitimate news source?
Yes and no. Founded as Silicon Alley Insider, it was renamed and relaunched as Business Insider circa 2009, by Henry Blodget. As others have noted, Mr. Blodget’s life has been controversial (a good article about his rise and fall and rise again is here: Henry Blodget's comeback complete after $343m sale of Business Insider). But Business Insider has continued to thrive, with millions of visitors to its website. Its core audience of “bankers, traders and tech geeks,” wrote Ian Burrell, a reporter for England’s The Independent, “…is overwhelmingly young and male. “They appreciate [Business Insider’s] mobile-friendly and graphics-illustrated guide to hot stocks.” And writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky noted that the publication benefits from being digital-only, and that “60 percent of its traffic comes from mobile devices and 39 percent from social networks.”This is both good and bad. Business Insider is known for getting unique and interesting stories first, as well as for compelling story-telling; but since it is aimed at a younger and more tech-savvy audience, its detractors say the focus is on getting stories first, rather than getting them right; there have also been reports of extreme pressure on its writers to turn out more and more content for the site. In addition, Business Insider has been criticized for its tabloid and clickbait-style headlines. And some critics have said the site traffics in gossip as much as it does in business news. On the other hand, Business Insider remains very popular with its target audience and has absolutely reported some important stories; a number of its writers have solid reputations. Thus, while it certainly seems legitimate, you may want to contrast what it publishes with stories from more traditional business publications like Forbes, Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. (Even if it’s the best source in the world, it’s never a good idea to only get your news from one place!)
What is the source of wikileaks info, and do you think it provides reliable information?
These questions have already been answered. Please see the following:Where does WikiLeaks get its information?How did Wikileaks get access to classified documents?Who verifies the authenticity of WikiLeaks?Are the informations provided by wikileaks really true?Was Bradley Manning the sole source of the WikiLeaks documents?To sum it up.Anonymous whistle blowers are the sources for the information that Wikileaks publishes. I am assuming, however, that you are asking if Bradley Manning released the cables released by Wikileaks as Cablegate. If that is what you meant, then, yes he is the source. He confessed to doing it and there is an exchange between him and Lamo that proves it. Because of the vetting process conducted by Wikileaks and their media partners and government reactions, the information is reliable. In regards to the media's (Guardian, NY Times, Der Spiegel, et al) vetting of the information, their reputations and credibility are on the line. They probably wouldn't have taken the risk if the information was falsified. It would also be exceptionally difficult to fabricate 700,000 documents. Certainly not impossible, but very very difficult.